short and long term memory

Question 1

Burger for capacity (STM AND LTM)

Answer 1

B: Capacity of STM and LTM
U: Jacobs found digit span of 9 for digits, 7.3 for letters; Miller noted about 7 chunks can be remembered.
R: Cowan suggests 4 chunks as a probable limit for capacity; Simon indicated larger chunks mean fewer items recalled.
G: Strength: Jacobs showed age affects digit span, with 9-year-olds recalling more than 8-year-olds.
E: Indicates developmental factors in memory capacity, influencing how memory is measured in different age groups.
R: Weakness: The idea of chunking is limited; chunk size can vary among individuals.

Question 2

Burger for duration (STM AND LTM)

Answer 2

B: Duration of STM and LTM
U: Peterson and Peterson found STM lasts about 18 seconds without rehearsal; Bahrick showed LTM can last for decades with accurate recognition.
R: Peterson and Peterson’s consonant syllables limited meaningful rehearsal; Reitman used auditory tones to show longer duration in STM.
G: Strength: Bahrick’s findings highlight LTM’s potential longevity in memory retention.
E: Illustrates the significance of meaningful information in memory retention over time.
R: Weakness: Peterson and Peterson’s method may lack ecological validity since consonant syllables are not typical stimuli.

Question 3

Burger for coding (STM AND LTM)

Answer 3

B: Coding in STM and LTM
U: Baddeley found difficulty remembering acoustically similar words in STM, while semantically similar words were challenging in LTM.
R: Brandimote indicated that STM can be visually coded if verbal rehearsal is prevented; Wickens et al. noted STM sometimes uses semantic coding.
G: Strength: Baddeley’s research highlights the distinct coding strategies utilized in different memory types.
E: Important for understanding how information is processed differently in memory systems.
R: Weakness: Baddeley’s test for LTM was only after 20 minutes, questioning the validity of measuring true LTM coding.